sticky. sort of.

"Our interest is in how effective ideas are constructed- what makes some ideas stick and others disappear". well obviously. otherwise this wouldn't be studied. I don't see how this is a definition though, it's more of an explanation to justify the study of "stickiness".

Stickiness is something random and uncomplicated, or something that repulses one to the point of immediate memory. Thinking back to the examples, especially the kidney example. Organ theft isn't a topic most people think of from day to day, making it stand out. It's out of the ordinary. At the same time, it's also rather disgusting. In an amusing sort of way :-). Who would think of to do something like that. It's the unconventional stories that people usually remember.

What's simple is what's remembered. Along with its simplicity, there has to be room for information. For example, the 37 grams of fat example. What people remembered was the pictures and description of the comparison of the popcorn to the bacon and burger grease. What stuck was taking the scientific complexity of the 37 grams of fat and boiling it down to a simple image of something everyone's encountered. What stuck is simple, but behind the simplicity there's an explanation (if one wanted to go study the grams of fat in daily fast foods). This way it's more believable because there's an explanation behind it. Similarly, stories that start with "friend of a friend" sticks moreso than stories without because it seems verifiable.

notes on the stalked

As awkward as it was starring at a guy with a girlfriend to get his specifics, it was done. Everyone was sitting on the ground floor of the library, complete with the huge window and leather couches for comfort. Around 1:13 p.m. he guy, who I'm going to call Boy, was sitting down on the couch, I'm going to assume that Boy was of average height, wearing a black fedora, and sweatshirt, with sneakers and jeans. The silver Coach purse next to him was probably the girl's. I would hope so anyway.

Slouched over the girl I'm going to assume is his girlfriend, the two of them watched probably a movie on his or her iphone or ipod touch with a purple cover. Boy wasn't doing very much aside from that, and cuddling with Girl. After just a little while though, the two of them left. Maybe it was because Girl saw me glancing over a few times, not that I was looking at Boy for any other reason except this assignment, but she wouldn't know. haha.

I don't think the two of them knew they were targets of a writing assignment. Granted, it would be odd if I were sitting in a lounge and suddenly twenty something students all walked in to sit down, all holding a three page packet with just a pen. However I think they were completely oblivious to the actions of their surroundings, which made the assignment all the more interesting. My subject, Boy, was rather boring. He didn't do much in the , oh maybe fifteen minutes I caught him sitting there. I don't think he said one word. Not an audible word anyways.

the point of stalking

The library project that consisted of watching and recording the actions and appearances of others was to exercise attention to detail in writing. The activity is useful to writers because detail is often what makes a piece of writing interesting, without it there is little visualization of what the writer is trying to show or explain. If a student didn't comprehensive notes on the appearance of whomever they were watching, it would be difficult to picture what the individual looks like. This can be tested by reading observations to another person and having them try to imagine the scene.

the dog article

Gladwell begins with stories of less-than-well-behaved dogs with owners at their wit's end. The similarities between all the owners is that, aside from the fact they've given up trying to tame the pet, the owners don't ever take a firm hand. Gladwell shows that the dogs can sense that the humans have given up and therefore handed over control to the pet. Just like a child, if a parent never displays any kind of disciplinary action, the child is likely to get out of control knowing there is no punishment. Gladwell talks a lot about the person's body language; are they leaning backwards or forwards? and how a dog responds well to that. Similarly to people, leaning forward shows aggression. He argues that dogs, like people deduce vibes from how the person presents him or herself. A person who comes off to be a pushover, will be taken advantage of.

Our subconscious actions actually affect those around us and how they respond. It clearly affects the way dogs behave and it also does the way humans behave. Gladwell mentions that a person needs to have presence to command order and to give discipline. A person who exercises those talents is a person who gets others to listen and or behave.

peter's question, my attempted answer

--> How can a reader better navigate through "stitch bitch"?

The article is somewhat of a hypertext; a compilation of ideas that doesn't seem to have a central focus. She broke up the article into a bunch of sections and each of those sections is different from the others. So in that way the reader can really start from anywhere; it's not necessary to read the entire thing in order to understand the last page, for example. As unorganized as the article seems to me, she did do a good job breaking it up into sections based upon the idea.

is hypertext schizophrenic? or is it "shelly jackson"?

"I expect there are some of you who still think I am Shelly Jackson..." is there any reason we would think otherwise? because "Shelly Jackson" is credited for this article.

"The body is a patchwork, though the stitches might not show" well I would certainly hope not.

So she says that "books are designed to keep you reading the next thing until they end". This is not necessarily true, but we tend to keep reading because there is a point to what we are reading. There's a storyline, a plot, or something we're supposed to learn. Hypertext is not like that. Is this what S. Jackson is trying so prove? That by being random, the reader will stop reading? because if so, it's worked. Is it hypertext that's schizophrenic? or is it "Shelly Jackson"? Since schizophrenia is characterized not by a lack of things to say, but by how incoherent it all comes out. I'm not saying that Shelly is incoherent, just that she chose a rather...difficult way of presenting her opinions.

In a way everything here is overanalyzed and second guessing.

"We're not who we say we are. It's pretty evident that whatever we say about ourselves isn't the entire truth. Just like the body in her article, there are parts to everyone, whether it be personalities, hobbies, or the ID she was talking about.

"It's not what we wish it were". Well, if "it" was, we wouldn't be wishing for "it" to turn out different, right? this is pretty similar to the line "We are not who we wish we were". Obviously.

1. Is S. Jackson comparing life and the aspects of it to hypertext? how things aren't really complete, and they aren't what they appear to be?

2. If she had a main idea, what would it be?

3. What's with the depressing phrases at the beginning of each section?

4. Why does she start the article with a confusing paragraph about whomever she may be?

5. What is hypertext to her?

6. Is she just saying that life's a bitch? and to question everything?

six questions

1. What does Collins feel about the original poem?

2. Is Collins serious about how the previous poet "failed"?

3. The poem sounds rather sarcastic, especially the way it was presented...why?

4. Is there a symbolic meaning of his use of utensils? Do goblets, bread and knives go together...?

5. What is he trying to say about what "you are"?

6. What is he suggesting about "I"?

Lethem...again

Excessive influence is most definitely a disadvantage to artists. Lethem says, "wheres there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing". When people plagiarize, or take too much of somebody else's idea to expand upon, nothing new is ever created. Everything gets repeated and eventually starts to sound the same. Writers will eventually be unable to come up with different ways to phrase the same idea and it will all look like plagiarism. Writers think that plagiarism makes them look smarter, obviously, or there would be no reason to take somebody else's work. "But the truth is...the loser is the collective public imagination from which we were nourished in the first place..". Taking others ideas does not help anyone; it does not contribute to the public knowledge, but it clouds the "collective public imagination". Nothing is contributed to the world from which "we were nourished in the first place", and everything becomes rather redundant. Perhaps everybody just likes to say the same thing, or the ideas writers choose to write about have been used to the point where nothing much comes from it, like a sale rack at the mall where the sizes don't fit anyone. The world is filled with the so-called knowledge that has nothing more to offer.

Ecstasy of Influence

Lethem's is not condoning plagiarism or defending it. He's saying that ideas feed off other people's works/writings/movies/ideas, and therefore everything new is not necessarily stolen as plagiarism, but something to get inspiration from, almost like a muse. He mentions that without basing ideas upon other works, we wouldn't have a lot of what's around now, such as Ren & stimpy, South park, etc. If this is called plagiarism, then it can sometimes be a good thing. However, I don't see that as plagiarism, it's simply taking ideas and changing it into something else.

He also mentions that there's a difference between plagiarism and stealing. He mentions that when an object such as a purse is stolen, it isn't available to the owner anymore, but taking music doesn't impact the owner; it's still there, somebody just used a copy of it.

Some people perhaps don't even think about plagiarism, as if it's something that everybody knows about just like a law. he said "as naturally inherent in our world, like the law of gravity". It's not something people think about deeply. Lethem brings up a point about plagiarism and how it isn't necessarily a horrible thing because it feeds new ideas bringing new things to the world and expanding others' knowledge.